The first offer—and this is where there was confusion—was an email to his chief of staff, and I think this was during the filibuster. Then when there was confusion as to whether or not this had been received, I think the following week there was an exchange of correspondence between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Scheer is a member of the Privy Council, and he has access to classified information that we, as members of the committee, are not entitled to. In your experience in this or other roles, have you come across another member of the Privy Council who has refused to accept the full story or receive a full classified briefing when given the opportunity to do so?

I can tell you that in the context of the Afghan detainees, there were a number of members of the opposition, as you remember, who were given the proper classification to be able to review a lot of documents. That is the precedent that we have had in recent years.

You've worked—and I will confine it—as a senior civil servant under different prime ministers. From my point of view it's been unnerving to see the opposition question the motives behind the briefing. Have you witnessed anything like that in your career, questioning the motivation of a civil servant, either to you or to others?

I would prefer not to comment on that, because I don't think it would be appropriate for a public servant.

I would say, however, is that the reason I think that for the last several weeks...and we have to remember that in the last six weeks there have been four weeks of breaks. There have been 13 sitting days in the last month and a half.

Part of the reason we've been having this issue is that I gave the background briefing. and all the stories were there. The word “diversion” doesn't appear once. The word “competency” appears once. John Ivison is saying that's not what he said. There was a narrative, after the trip, that developed that somehow I was either being used as a human shield or that somehow I had crossed my public service values to go and do this.

I think I've been very clear this morning that for a public servant, it is absolutely right for Canadians and media to ask tough questions to the Prime Minister, tough questions to the MP who was the source of the invitation, tough questions to all of us, and also to staff in the PMO who were involved in the whole reception preparation. In the same way, I think Canadians have the right to know when there are people who are trying to create a false narrative using three respected public institutions.

With respect to fabricating a false narrative, do you believe that's continuing? I saw a story that I believe was in the Huffington Post with respect to a meeting being cancelled with, I believe, the external affairs minister of India, and such a meeting was never in discussion. There was no movement towards that. It was an article retweeted by the Leader of the Opposition. Is that fabrication of narrative continuing?

The only thing I know is that we were not aware of such a meeting. They've agreed there would be regular foreign policy ministerial meetings. We were not aware that there was such a meeting scheduled, that such a decision had been made. The Indian high commissioner has confirmed that this is the case.

I'm not an expert in parliamentary practice, but I mean the two days when you went through a number of votes, including the vote on having me appear. If I've used the wrong term, I apologize. I have never worked on the Hill.

Second, the Prime Minister's Office was in possession of this list of people invited by MPs. Leaving aside the issue of whether that would be vetted, had the PMO taken names off this list, there would be no scandal. Is that correct?

This is a Liberal scandal, and your insertion into it comes as a result of your concern for inaccurate information. Let me refer you to the Prime Minister's comments on February 22, when he confirmed that he believed Liberal MP Randeep Sarai's version of the events. The Prime Minister said, “The member of Parliament who included this individual has, and will, assume full responsibility for his actions.” Within a day of that, you began your briefings with the media.

On February 27, the Prime Minister offered another explanation for Mr. Atwal's attendance, relying on your background information, Mr. Jean. Which version of the Prime Minister's statement is correct, that it was the Liberal MP Randeep Sarai or possibly a conspiracy?

Let me stop you there, Mr. Jean, because you said you did your briefing because of inaccurate information. What Global News source suggested there was a rogue Indian government conspiracy to bring Mr. Atwal? I'd not seen that anywhere until your briefing started. What inaccurate information related to Mr. Atwal, apart from just some Indian paper saying he was on an official delegation or not...? You were the first person to suggest this rogue element theory, sir.

To be very clear, what I told the media in the background briefing was that there was what seemed to be orchestrated misinformation. They asked me, and I went out of my way to say very clearly that this was not the Government of India. They asked who it was. I said that they were either private citizens or people from the government who are doing it and are not blessed. That's the clarity on that question.

To answer those questions, the PMO media relations team put us in touch, “on background,” with this senior government official. That official...used the opportunity to advance the theory that Atwal’s presence at these receptions in India may have been engineered by the Indian government or “factions” within [it]....

The same thing came in a CBC story. It led the story, sir.

Could you table with this committee any inaccurate report in any media source that suggested the rogue element theory before you did? I don't see it in your report today.